Talk:Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Some problems here. Palestine Post of Mar 6, 1949 says "Magic Carpet winds up" referring to 4,500 Yemenites being brought to Israel over 3 months. The first mention was on Feb 22, 1949. This pre-dates the start of the operation given on this page. Of course there were two larger groups brought later, but even for those "secret operation that was not made public until several months after it was over" is not true. The intention to bring them was reported on April 8, 1949, and progress reports made regularly over the following months. On Nov 8, 1949 there's a report of a larger airlift in progress (this is worth reading for the patronising tone, as if speaking about savages: "In Israel they sleep at first under the beds provided for them, for they do not understand the purpose of a bed"). These reports are notable in that they don't say that the Yemenites were escaping (as is the usual description given today). It is rather said that Israel "fulfils the dream" of the Yemenites and so on. Palestine Post is searchable at [1]. --Zerotalk 13:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Many of the newly births where kidnaped by authorities and sold for aduption" is in the current text. This sentence has a couple problems, first off the grammar and spelling are atrocious. Secondly, what the heck is it talking about? Whose births? What authorities? Pmw2cc (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of them had never seen an aircraft before.[edit]

This common claim is completely unbelievable. It may be that they had never seen an aircraft up close before, but aircraft had been in the skies for several decades. I expect that it is an myth made plausible only by the patronising (some might say racist) way these people were seen by the "civilised" Westerners and Israelis. --Zerotalk 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do research before you assert that the above claim is a myth. If you speak with any of the individuals who were flown as part of this operation (as I, in fact, have) they will certainly corroborate it. It seems it is not the westerners or Israelis who are the racists...Followandpersue (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, Tudor Parfitt's book on this subject confirms what I suspected, that this story is a myth and aircraft had been in the skies of Yemen for some time. The Imam even had two of his own. Zerotalk 01:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing section/info[edit]

Hello there is a huge gap of information here, a critism section, the operation was marred by accusations that the israeli government systematically ripped religion from the yemenites after they came,. this was an issue that divided jewish society as a whole back then with strong views being expressed - and still being expressed - by both sides. Some consider it as the first major split - at least publicly - by the overall right - wing orthodox section of Jews to the israeli zionist government. It was a major issue that shouldn't be ignored in a reliable encyclopedia... there is a famous book written about it but i forget what it is named... i have it at home :-) maybe when i can b bothered...-- (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

An Alaska Airlines page about their role: - I'm not good enough at editing Wiki to fix it up properly into the page, but it's a lead for someone who wants to try their hand at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

several new books debunking the mythology[edit]

The claims in this Haaretz story are similar to what appears in the book of Tudor Parfitt. Zerotalk 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

References and emotional sentences[edit]

1 With the exception of references 7 and 8 (as of the date of this post, 23 June 2012), all the references are in Hebrew.
2 I have deleted the parts of the article to which there have been objections, and those parts which attempt to play on the emotions. Trahelliven (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


I am writing from the JDC archives and have curated a number of items related to Operation Magic Carpet. Among them are a set of photographs from the operation This link refers Would this be a beneficial contribution for the page? Archivist123 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is "Yes"
The more complex answer depends on the licencing of the photographs. Can we use them here freely? May they be uploaded, ideally to Commons, otherwise to Wikipedia?
Ok, not a 100% helpful answer, but answer it is :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
A little research at suggests that each photograph needs a full release for use here. You may know differently. WP:Copyright will be helpful to you I think. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
You raise a good point regarding licensing for the photographs. I wonder if inserting a link to the photographs already made available by the JDC archives via their website would be acceptable. But I don't know exactly where this would fit into the entry - as an external link? As a citation? A citation within the article seems dubious though. Let me contact the appropriate person at the archives and see what response I get regarding their use on Wikipedia. Archivist123 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The info on copyright here shows that they could make a full release, if they choose. They do have to understand that this means that any pictures selected will have escaped into the wild. This means they may wish to, for example, release a limited resolution picture. It cannot be a picture that restricts rights (eg with a copyright symbol etc embedded). This is a thing to get right without rushing. A citation inside the article would look, I fear, like an attempt to link for resale, so is likely to be deprecated unless the picture is free to view and there is no solicitation to buy. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a citation wouldn't be best given the potential problems in attempting to verify information with an image. The images are freely searchable through the JDC archives website, so anyone with an internet connection can access them, but permission must be granted to use take an image and use it for another purpose. This is the information that I have gathered. If I understand this correctly, posting an external link directly to the JDC archives collection of photos would be OK as it would provide access to the photos without taking them directly from the archives. I'll include the link I have in mind as a reference to this sentence.[1] Is this an appropriate way of going about it? Archivist123 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I keep forgetting to include an edit summary. My apologies! Archivist123 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on one view of this operation[edit]

This article discusses mostly Meir-Glitzen et al.'s view on this operation. Therefore, it is unbalanced. LevelBasis (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Then add balancing sources, of quality.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I did. LevelBasis (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, in your version of the article, almost all of the article was claimed by Meir-Glitzen's view. That is higly unbalanced. LevelBasis (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is how the artcile looked before your large changes. That looks way more balanced.

In any case, mentioning Meir-Glitzen's views in one alinea should surely be enough. LevelBasis (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I added some subsections to the article. Meir-Glitzen's view is mentioned in a whole alinea, see: That seems balanced to me. LevelBasis (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Meir-Glitzen's study is an important one and it is completely proper that it feature prominently. You can't just delete properly cited text you don't like. We need to present the findings of modern scholarship, not just the official myths of the past. Also in this category is Tudor Parfitt's book The Road to Redemption, which mostly agrees with Meir-Glitzen. An older book that also has a lot of material based on primary sources is Segev's 1949—The FIrst Israelis. Zerotalk 02:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The massive theft of property that occurred also needs to be added. Zerotalk 09:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I did not delete anything, I only summarized her findings -- that's a crucial difference.
In your version of the article the 1947 pogrom and other anti-Jewish violence thereafter was not even mentioned as a "reason for the exodus". That is highly POV.
In 'my' version both the pogroms and the possible economic/religious factors are mentioned.
LevelBasis (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please also consider the Hebrew version of this article. This looks to be the most complete version of all of Wikipedia's articles on this subject. LevelBasis (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. You deleted a substantial amount of impeccably sourced detail, taken from three authors, and now have done so twice (here and here). This is obvious edit-warring, employing subjective i.e. spurious grounds, and is tantamount to POV pushing. What you removed will be restored. If you do so again, your stay on the English wikipedia will be brief. Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why the discussion as to be hostile like this. I summarized Meir-Glitzen's views; if needed I could do the same with the other author's views, but I thought they were highly similar to Meir-Glitzen's views.
As i said before, this is how the artcile looked before your large changes. Imho your changes are highly POV because they only discuss one view on this operation and don't even mention antisemitic violence as one of the reasons for the emigration. This is very unbalanced and does not match with any of the other Wiki-articles in other languages about this subject. So, can we agree to some version which includes all views, including the one from Meir-Glitzen et al?
LevelBasis (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The Hebrew article is better than this one, but only because this one is very poor. For example someone called LevelBasis keeps inserting some stuff based on the ignorant belief that Aden was in Yemen. Why is that? Zerotalk 12:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, I don't see why the discussion as to be this hostile. The Hebrew version does not mention Meir-Glitzen research at all by the way.
I am aware that Aden was part of the British mandate area during a time. If I suggest otherwise somewhere, please point out where, then it can be changed. LevelBasis (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hostile editing consists in making a summary assertion on a talk page, then proceeding to delete solid unchallenged quality sources and extensive sections, and, in the face of strong objections by two long established editors, persist in mass deletion of the material the other two defend as proper additions to the article. We are not using the Hebrew wiki page as a source, but compiling this according to English sources of high quality, according to the standards norms. Don't abuse the patience of other editors or persist in pretending not to understand their legitimate objections to your suppression of text. Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
These are all non-arguments based on a suposed authority of you and your buddy Zero0000 which does not even match your actual history which shows that you both have a clear POV regarding this subject. So please, let's stop this discusion and start a version of this article we can both live with. LevelBasis (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph you keep inserting tries to give the impression that the Yemeni Jews wanted to leave Yemen on account of previous violence in a different country. It is stupid and must be changed. So far you have not contributed in a positive way. You haven't brought any sources. You haven't argued against any source except to say you don't like it. All you did was slash and burn. That is not proper behavior. Zerotalk 22:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
That is surely one factor that led to their emigration. I have btw added several sources, so please do get your facts straight. Please also see the proposal below. LevelBasis (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A version that includes all views on this operation[edit]

Could we please agree on some version of this article that includes ALL views on this operation and not just one? Just to be clear: that includes also the views of Meir-Glitzen et al.

We could, alternatively, also translate the Hebrew version of this article into English.

Which option do you prefer? LevelBasis (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer that you go away so that filing a complaint against you isn't necessary. The only things you added to this article are not actually about the topic of the article. As well as that you mass-deleted properly cited material. When I added a summary from one of the foremost historians of the 1948-9 events, you delete it without any explanation. This proves you are not honest about including all views. This sort of behavior can't be tolerated. Zerotalk 10:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Btw, it is Meir-Glitzenstein, not Meir-Glitzen. Zerotalk 10:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If you want people who don't share your POV to "go away", then you should start your own website.
Anyway, are you or are you not willing to consider a version that includes all views on this operation or to translate the Hebrew version of this article? Imho both are reasonable options which would improve the quality of this article. LevelBasis (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I for one will consider any material, properly sourced, from any collaborative editor, who understands wiki is a collegial workshop. You suffer from WP:IDONTLIKETHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that is quickly deteriorating, since you consistently remove whatever you dislike, against the advice of others, into WP:OWN. Do it again, and you will be reported and suspended.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
First your wiki-friend Zero told me to "go away" and now you tell me I will be "suspended" if I don't act on your will? I think you two are faslely thinking you own Wikipedia.
Anyway, I added sources for which your rightfully requested.
However, Meir-Glitzenstein et al.'s views are still overpresented. In the Hebrew version of this article they are not mentioned at all, and here they fill almost the whole article. I asked you several times to join forces with me to make this article one which we both can agree with and I will ask you again: are you willing or are you not? LevelBasis (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I summarized all views -- without deleting even one source --, so that the article is more balanced and does not primarily disucces one point of view. Can we both agree on this version of the article? LevelBasis (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no faith in your ability to produce a balanced article. The evidence so far suggests the opposite. Zerotalk 23:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That's why I offered to join forces and work together; so you can balance my POV and I can balance yours. LevelBasis (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Another problem is that the material from 1959 onwards is not relevant. There is another article about Yemeni Jews where modern material is appropriate, but this article is about a particular operation in the 1948+ timeframe. Zerotalk 23:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In the same way it is relevant what happend before the operation, it is also relevant what happened afterwards. It provides informative context. LevelBasis (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Jewish community in Yemen after the operation section[edit]

"At present time,[when?] a total of some 250 Jews still live in Yemen.[13][14] Nowadays,[when?] only approximately 300 Jews still live in Yemen, dispersed in three communities,"

These 2 sentences contradict each other. Which is correct?

Dstern1 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^